Fernandez vs.

CA
Topic: Intervention

Facts:
Complainants Ethelwoldo Fernandez, and Antonio Henson were elected to the board
of directors of NADECOR. In a regular stockholders meeting where two groups were
vying for control over the company, Calalang, De Jesus, Romulo, Ayala, Lazatin,
Fernandez, Nitorreda, Engle were Elected. Gatmaitan was also elected as Corporate
Secretary. Thereafter, Ricafort/s, claiming to be stockholders of record, sought to
annul the said meeting held. They filed a complaint before the RTC of PASIG.
Ricafort/s alleged that they were not given due notice of the said meeting thus they
were not present and were not able to exercise their right. RTC agreed with the
Ricaforts. Four separate Petition for Certiorari were filed by the members of the
board with the CA, all with application for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. The
CA denied such applications, but on the same day nevertheless, the 11th division
issued a TRO. During the effectivity of the TRO, the old Board of Directors assumed
the functions of the new one in order to prevent any hiatus and not to prejudice the
corporation. All the CA petitions were consolidated as well as the other cases. On
February 17, 2012, the respondents Ricafort filed their Comment Ad Cautelam to
the petition in CA-G.R. No. 122784. The petitioners therein thereafter filed three (3)
urgent motions to resolve their application for writ of preliminary injunction, on
March 8, on May 22, and again on June 6, 2012. The Writ of Preliminary Injunction
was granted by the CA 14th Division, which not for long was questioned.
Complainants filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,
seeking to annul the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CAs Special 14th
Division. Complainants also filed an Administrative case against the Justices of the
14th Division of the CA. Alleged in this administrative complaint that the respondent
Justices are guilty of grave misconduct, conduct detrimental to the service, gross
ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and manifest partiality.

Issue:
Whether the Ricaforts have a legal personality to assail the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the CA 14th Division.

Held:
NO. A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of
either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely
affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court
or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the
action.Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that a person who has a
legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or
an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an
officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action.
Conversely, a person who is not a party in the main suit cannot be bound by an
ancillary writ, such as a preliminary injunction. Indeed, he cannot be affected by any
proceeding to which he is
a stranger. Moreover, a person not an aggrieved party in the original proceedings
that gave rise to the petition for certiorari, will not be permitted to bring the said
action to annul or stay the injurious writ. Such is the clear import of Sections 1 and
2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, a person not a party to the proceedings in
the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain an action for certiorari in the Supreme
Court to have the judgment reviewed. Stated differently, if a petition for certiorari or
prohibition is filed by one who was not a party in the lower court, he has no
standing to question the assailed order.
In this Courts Resolution dated July 18, 2012 in G.R. Nos. 202218-21, entitled Jose
G. Ricafort, et al. v. Court of Appeals [Special 14th Division], et al., involving a
petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by JG Ricafort, De Jesus, Paolo A. Villar,
and Ma. NalenRosero-Galang, also questioning the validity of the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the Special 14th Division of the CA, we ruled that persons who
are not parties to any of the consolidated petitions have no personality to assail the
said injunctive writ.
In another Resolution, also promulgated on July 18, 2012, in G.R. Nos. 202257-60, a
petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by herein complainants to assail the
validity of the writ of preliminary injunction in the aforesaid consolidated CA
petitions, we likewise dismissed the petition due to lack of personality of the
petitioners, since they were non-parties and strangers to the consolidated CA
petitions. We pointed out that they should first have intervened below, and then
filed a motion for reconsideration from the questioned CA order. On September 19,
2012, we denied their motion for reconsideration from the dismissal of their
petition.

Having established that the herein complainants have no personality to assail the
writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CAs former Special 14th Division, we
cannot now permit them to harass the CA Justices who issued the same. For even
granting that the issuance of the writ was erroneous, as a matter of public policy a
magistrate cannot be held administratively liable for every discretionary but
erroneous order he issues. The settled rule is that a Judge cannot be held to
account civilly, criminally or administratively for an erroneous decision render